I shoulda checked here and posted last week after many "storm/hurricane/weather" sites I visit showed video of the helo tour of Tyndall and Mexico Beach and parts of Panama City. However, living down here I had other priorities and also had a family catastrophy to deal with. Tyndall was being discussed on those non-aviation sites and one dude even has a video from there during the eye of the storm. Didn;t think to check here as Tyndall also showed up elsewhere.

RUMOUR CONTROL, and a little other stuff.

Credentials: Gums lives down here, and has seen the storms up close since 1985 ( Kate, Juan, Erin, Opal and outskirts of Dennis and Ivan, even Alberto this year hitting between me and Tyndall) I even saw one in '66 when I was stationed at Tyndall for VooDoo checkout. Lived in Mexico Beach and the sucker went in about 20 miles east of us - Alma. Yep! They evacuated the base and flew all flyable jets out, then pushed rest into best hangars they had. Ditto this year and also here at Eglin early last week with all the f-35's and other jets. You never know exactly where the things are gonna hit and how strong, or weak, they might get in the last few hours. I am sure there were F-35's and even Vipers that stayed behind here , 'cause the day you get all of your planes 100% completely operational any day of the week, we'll have X-wings and real Colonial Vipers.

TYNDALL IS NOT DESTROYED

Tyndall does not look anything like Mexico Beach, 7 or 8 miles east. Wind damahge? Yep, but not catastrophic and prolly less than Homestead had. No flooding to speak of except due to sewer problems/drainage. i.e. no storm surge of consequence

The photography below has clear pictures of the base, and even the housing area with 90% of the houses built back in the 60's looks 100% better than MB or Beacon Hill. One closeup of Tyndall in "before and after" feature shows clearly that the base was. NOT LEVELED !!!!

So cruise around on the larger map collection, zoom in and then take a peek at the "before and after" of Tyndall and Mexico Beach.

The big problem with the Raptors will be RAM. We may have lost one or two if the hangar wall collapsed on it or roof caved in, but normal storm destruction of a building has debris down wind/down surge, and you can see this in the pics of other places nearby.

For good DIY before and after, use the NOAA pics and Google Maps or other satellite apps. Hell, NOAA does their thing for taxpayers and others to make insurance claims. I even used Google street view of my truck in the driveway for a claim last year, as it had time-date stamp.++++++++++++++++++++

If you wish to do something constructive, go see local sites and contribute to recovery. The troops are used to deployments and austere accomodations and such. The rank and file civilians are SOL 'cause they can't get to a convenience store within 2 minutes.

P.S. The climate crapola is just that. For the last 100 years or so we have developed/invented sensors that are orders of magnitude more sensitive that what was available back in 1850, certainly well before then. Remember an hourglass you used to time your boiled eggs? No? Then you are a yute. Heh heh. Did we have sophisticated computers to develop models of physical phenomena even 60 years ago? No way, Jose.

And most important, did we have government policies involving lots of other people's money dispersed based upon studies and findings by the folks getting the OPM? Did any of those studies fail to support gloom and doom and the need for more studies?

A poster here has asserted that "evil, big oil" and fossil fuel interests are providing "trillions" to counter the global warming alarmists and so-called consensus. Go look up their tax forms and those of conservative think tanks and find one tenth of the $$$ the U.S. grants folks do do any study using the words "climate change' in the proposal's abstract (Important , and follow-up point later) So I quote Ike's going away speech. The military-industrial complex issue gets the attention, but then he says this:

From Eisenhower’s farewell address:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

The "consensus" is not 97% of scientists of any ilk. The infamous number is 74 outta 77 abstracts ( not the full study results or methods or data) culled from well over 3,000 surveys returned from the over 10,000 surveys sent to all kindsa scientists. Later corroboration from thousands of "scientists" , and even some of the 77 that the study used revealed that the actual consensus was weak and about 60%, with even some of those not willing to have us revert to 1815 technology and conveniences to prevent a change in temperature measured in hundreths of a degree over decades or a sea level change the thickness of a nickel in a decade.

So here's a good explanation of "climate change" from an extremely respected scientist with expertise in these matters. As with many, he does not "deny" what some call "climate", or even "climate change". Damned hard to find anyone who does. It comes down to the causes of a change and if we can do anything about them. I would love to see 97% of any poll that can agree on the exact temperature, rainfall, hurricane frequency, heat spells, cold spells, and so forth that we want. And those parameters may not be what is best for the overall health of earth and it's creatures.

I don't believe in climate change after reading extensively here. But that's not what's important: Saving our precious few F-22's is, and I'm hoping they're all safe and/or can be repaired. I can only imagine the pressure of flying one, being the national treasure that it is.

I hope it sees air to air combat some day, so the people who cancelled it can see the error of their ways. While I have an increasing confidence level in the F-35's ability to defend itself, only the Raptor brings an edge in every part of the envelope. Good men down there at Tyndall, doing good work...

Doubling C02 by itself will add about a degree to global temperature and there has been just under a degree temperature rise for a 50% CO2 increase since pre-industrial times. However the alarmists say the forcing warming factor on say water vapor heating is not say 1.5 which is what the whole industrial age is telling us but 2.5 to 5 which is just ridiculous. If we burn all fossil fuels we might get a total degree rise from the pre Industrial Age of 2-2.5 degrees and good job too, next ICE AGE prevented and global CO2 is around maximum greenhouse effect to increase plant growth another 20%. Much ado about nothing !

Before we decide to "believe" or "disbelieve" (or until this thread gets marked as "offtopic") I'd say we owe it to ourselves to absorb as much of the counter-counter-arguments as we can understand, no?

So ANYWAY. It is nice to see the Air Force community pulling together to help get Tyndall AFB back together. Hopefully they can get things back together enough for a full recovery for not just the base for the whole community around the base as well.

Science has no absolute, infallible authorities. After strenuous and rigid review/testing of the data the most reasonable conclusion is drawn which is always open to challenge by new data/findings. With modern technology, scientists aren't limited to looking at the physical data from decades ago constrained by the tech and knowledge of the past.

Here's the more comprehensive perspective on Prof. Lindzen from his colleagues within the MIT community. I don't doubt his credentials but he appears to be an outlier with a Conservative bent. It should also be.noted.that the qualifications of the 300 "eminent" and "qualified" people cited who supported his position has been called into question. As per the linked article - A review of the names by the Guardian, however, revealed few biology, chemistry, climate, earth and physics scientists. Many are well-known climate contrarians and deniers.

"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

The MIT letter noted that professional societies including the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union have all released statements. A recent analysis found that 140 of the world's national academies and top scientific geosciences, biological, chemical, physical, agricultural and other organizations have issued statements about human-caused warming.

Before we close the climate thread, and look at ways to support the folks at Tyndall, I'll make my stand.

Luv ya, Popcorn, but we must remind all of a few things.....

I quote Pop, "Science has no absolute, infallible authorities." So true, except for the non-scientists that write the IPCC reports that claim we're all gonna die unless we do something right now to have an effect in 12 years /sarc. Baaahhh. No way to prove it, and even the IPCC has stated that they don't/can't "predict". All the warnings use words like "suggest", "possible", "may:, "could", and so forth. The so-called "predictions" have failed for about 20 years. Look at the bios of the IPCC writers of the final document and you will be surprised.

But then, "After strenuous and rigid review/testing of the data the most reasonable conclusion is drawn which is always open to challenge by new data/findings." BEAM ME UP!! Few, if any, contrary studies are accepted that do not support the current mantra. The scientists that advocate less human influence upon the climate, especially the "control knob" carbon dioxide emitted by evil humans creating electricity or driving SUV's, are vilified and kicked out of their societies like the AGU and others mentioned by Pop. Think Galileo. Think Einstein. Think the folks advocating plate tectonics back in our own time ( I was almost 30 years old). The study reviews are done by the brothers-in-law and all stand to lose their grants and such if they disagree. Those thatpresent dissenting views and studies and data are rebuffed and shamed and don't get any more invites to the climate conferneces at taxpayer expense.

SCIENCE IS NOT CONSENSUS.

I do not subscribe to the position by some that all the alarmists are collaborating in some grand conspiracy. But there are definitely some that have exploited the flow of cash for promoting global warming caused by humans, and here's a good one:

And you can look up the whole scandal and even see the perps' IRS Fm 990's.

Oh yeah, the infamous tampering/adjusting data that was exposed about 9 years ago called "Climategate". The cabal had to get their stories straight and data did not support their idea of human Co2 being the control knob. SO previous dta indicating warmer climate than today was "adjusted". Huh? You don;t need a thermometer record of Greenland to find that the Norse grew crops there over thousand years go and they cannot grow them today. Think it was warmer?

To conclude, i can't seem to find too many scientists that deny our climate is changing, up or down or a bit each way. But consensus is not fact, it is simply consensus. There are many surveys and such that show much lack of faith or belief or judgement or conviction that humans are the primary cause of our climate changing. And the mechanism of Co2 that is used is not even like a greenhouse. That term is used to sate the average bear or politician or foundation willing to donate the money. Actual greenhouses mostly depend upon lack of convection, The evil Co2 molecules re-radiate at a wavelength different from the rays striking the molecules coming in from the sun. And the new wavelengths carry more heat to our surface. In other words, the Co2 molecules convert some of the basic rays to rays that cause more heat. Half of those are re-radiated back into space.

Little $$$ are granted to scientists in order to determine the percent of human effects versus the many chaotic processes that Mother Earth has not yet revealed to us. It is simply too easy to assert that we emit Co2 and therefore we can cease emitting or cut back. And since we cannot do anything about volcanoes or ocean currents or asteroids or....... Problem is ,that according to the UN and IPCC and others, we would have to forego current civilization energy souces and standards of living to what existed several hundred years ago. No way to have PV panels and windmills and such come up to the task within decades, and the UN and alarmists now claim we have to stop now and even then it will be 12 years before we see effects.

That's all for now, and am logging.

Gums sends...

Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"

The evil Co2 molecules re-radiate at a wavelength different from the rays striking the molecules coming in from the sun. And the new wavelengths carry more heat to our surface.

The evil Co2 molecules, as you refer to them, absorb and re-radiate back toward the source of incoming longwave radiation, caused from the surface of the Earth being "excited" (heated) by shorter wave radiation coming in from the sun. Simply put, energy induced from the sun which would have normally escaped into space, is now being re-sent back to Earth, and as it carries momentum, it will cause additional heating.